Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleRider
Your argument is fallacious. It begs the question and assumes that unborns, at any stage of development are not living human beings entitled to the same rights as everyone else.
|
I assume nothing of the sort. Not that they are not living human beings, or that once they are born, they would not have the same rights as everyone else (please see our Constitution for what makes an American citizen). Only that the rights of the mother are preeminent and that she has the right to take that life before it is born and becomes a citizen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleRider
Following your logic, people who lived 150 years ago who were against slavery should have contented themselves with painting a sign on their wagon that said:
If you don't like slavery, don't own one.
Would that have been your attitude towards slavery? That the decision to own or not own another human being should be left to those who might or might not buy another human being?
|
That's utterly ridiculous. My reasoning does nothing of the sort. My reasoning was, in fact, against making slaves of the state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleRider
If having a defect, or being in foster care is a valid reason for killing, why then do you not advocate killing those whom we know for sure are defective in some manner or are already living in foster care rather than those who "might" end up in those situations.
|
And you are accusing me of being fallacious in my reasoning? In my case, I was speaking of someone who is not even born and who is actually inside the body of another person, and in both of
your cases (not my words, but yours), you talk about the rights of people who are already born.
And when I talk of defects, I'm not talking about a lazy eye. The example I used was a child born with her spine on the outside. I'm not talking about defects that make life hard but still livable and productive, but ones that will keep that person in a hospital for the rest of their lives, possibly in great pain and discomfort, and definitely not productive, if even capable of communication.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleRider
Your argument is just chock full of fallacy, isn't it?
|
Certainly not for the reasons you have cited.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleRider
What other situations do you favor killing a child for the crime of his or her parents?
|
Why must there be other situations? But this is your whole method of argument, isn't it? To put words in another person's mouth and then argue those words. It is an old fallacy of logic known as the "Straw Man Argument."
Why do you not address the issues I did raise, instead of making up your own?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleRider
But following your logic, slavery was fine and up to the individual who might or might not have bought a slave. Your argument assumes that the child is the rapist or that the child is not half the woman's. Can you make a rational argument for killing one human being for the crimes of another?
|
You cannot provide a single quote of mine that says any of this. That is not the path of my logic, but your own.
BTW, in the case of rape, the child is 100% hers, not half.
Yes, the rational argument for a mother killing the fetus of a rapist is that she does not want to bear the child. It is not about punishing the rapist or punishing the unborn child. It is all about the mother's rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleRider
That has to be one of the silliest analogies put foreward yet. Would you like to try again?
|
Just saying it is silly does not make it so. It is actually quite an accurate legal analogy in terms of a criminal profiting from his crime.
I'm not going to put words in your mouth, but ask you a question.
What would you do if, say, a clerk at a fertility clinic switched sperm samples and impregnated over a hundred women with his own sperm—and says in a rambling note that his "Master, Satan" told him to do it?
Let's say it turns out he was schizophrenic and it is hereditary in his family.
Let's say we can identify the gene and it is present in the fetuses of all his victims.
Finally, let's say that most of the 100+ women want an abortion.
Would you jail all of those women for seeking an abortion and put them under 24-hour lockdown and constant surveillance for nine months just to be sure they didn't harm their pregnancies?
Hehetchetu. Wa uyun tinkte!
Linear Mode
